1

UCL INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

ARCLG281: FUNERARY ARCHAEOLOGY

2013-14

15 credits

Co-ordinator: MIKE PARKER PEARSON m.parker-pearson@ucl.ac.uk

Room 310 02076794767

2

1 OVERVIEW Short description How we dispose of and commemorate our dead is fundamental to human culture. Human remains are some of the most significant archaeological finds and archaeologists have to know something about the diversity of attitudes and practices relating to the dead. This half-module begins with the study of methods and techniques of analysis, followed by a survey of contemporary societies' funerary practices and the variety of human responses to death. It then focuses on the interpretive theories and models that have been used to reconstruct the social significance of funerary treatment in past societies. Case studies will focus on the interpretation of rank and status, ritual and symbolism, territory and legitimation, and the ethical and legal aspects of exhumation and reburial. These studies will range across a wide variety of periods and places, from the Lower Palaeolithic to the present day.

Week-by-week summary

TERM 1 1.10.13 14:00 1. Introduction to funerary archaeology: course organization 8.10.13 14:00 2. Principles of analysis: ritual and remembrance 15.10.13 14:00 3. Ethnoarchaeology of death 22.10.13 14:00 4. Reading the body, treating the corpse 29.10.13 14:00 5. Status, power and identity: the powerful dead 5.11.13 14:00 6 Death in the landscape 12.11.13 14:00 7. Death and the origins of human consciousness 19.11.13 14:00 8. READING WEEK (NO TEACHING) 26.11.13 14:00 9. The human experience of death 3.12.13 14:00 10. The politics of the dead 10.12.13 14:00 11. Funerary powerpoint karaoke Basic texts Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton. ISSUE DESK IoA PAR 8,

INST ARCH AH PAR

Pettitt, P. 2010. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London: Routledge. ISSUE DESK IoA PET 20, INST

ARCH BC 120 PET

Huntington, R. and Metcalf, P. 1979. Celebrations of Death: the anthropology of mortuary ritual. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. ANTHROPOLOGY D 155 HUN

Knsel, C. and Gowland, R. (eds) 2006. Social Archaeology of Funerary Remains. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH

JF Qto GOW

Tarlow, S. and Nilsson Stutz, L. (eds) 2013. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3

Methods of assessment This course is assessed by means of two pieces of coursework, each of 2,500 words, which each contribute 50% to the final grade for the course. Teaching methods The course is taught through lectures/seminars. In addition, a gallery visit will be arranged to give students greater familiarity with the materials covered in the course. Workload There will be 20 hours of seminars for this course. Students will be expected to undertake around 90 hours of reading for the course, plus 40 hours preparing for and producing the assessed work. This adds up to a total workload of some 150 hours for the course. 2 AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND ASSESSMENT Aims This half-modules aims are: to evaluate different types of archaeological and historical evidence

to integrate this variety of evidence in a theoretically informed manner

to explore a range of themes in funerary archaeology

to discuss patterns of human behaviour in funerary archaeology

to explore the relationship between material culture and funerary practices Objectives On successful completion of this course a student should:

be familiar with the archaeological and historical sources for past and present funerary practices

have developed a critical awareness of the ritual, political, social and economic factors influencing funerary practices

appreciate the problems and potentials of the data available, and be able to apply this knowledge to a range of archaeological periods

have become familiar with the sources available for funerary archaeology

understand the strengths and weaknesses of the archaeological and documentary sources for funerary archaeology

understand the need for a broad geographical and chronological approach to funerary archaeology

Be able to make effective paper and discussion/lecture presentations on the materials relevant to the course

Learning Outcomes On successful completion of the course, students should be able to demonstrate/have developed:

observation and critical reflection application of acquired knowledge oral presentation skills

4

Coursework Assessment tasks Essay 1a: How have archaeologists and historians explained the lavishness and monumentality of the Victorian way of death in Britain? Curl, J.S. 1972. The Victorian Celebration of Death. Newton Abbott: David and Charles. HISTORY 82

u CUR Jalland, P. 1999. Victorian death and its decline: 1850 to 1918. In P.C. Jupp and C. Gittings (eds)

Death in England: an illustrated history. Manchester: Manchester University Press. pp. 230-55. INST ARCH DAA 100 JUP, HISTORY 82 du JUP, ANTHROPOLOGY JA 43 JUP, FLS D 45 JUP

Morley, J. 1971 Death, Heaven and the Victorians. London: Studio Vista. Tarlow, S. 2011. Ritual, belief and the dead in early modern Britain and Ireland. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH DAA 200 TAR

Essay 1b: How far does the new fashion for green burial reflect a change or decline in religious belief? Clayden, A. 2011. Reclaiming and reinterpreting ritual in the woodland burial ground. In P. Post and J. Kroesen (eds) Sacred Places in Modern Western Culture. Louvain: Peeters. 289-294. Clayden, A. Hockey, J. and Powell, M. 2010. Natural burial: the de-materialising of death? In J. Hockey, C. Komaromy, and K. Woodthorpe (eds) The Matter of Death: space, place and materiality. London: Plagrave. 148-164. Hockey, J. Green, T. Clayden, A. and Powell, M. 2012. Landscapes of the dead? Natural burial and the materialisation of absence. Journal of Material Culture 17: 115-32. Electronic resource Wienrich, S., Speyer, J. and Albery, N. (eds) 2003. The Natural Death Handbook. London: Random House. Chapters 4, 6 and 9.

Essay 1c: How have methods of archaeological excavation and sampling of human burials improved in the last 30 years? Cox M., Flavel A., Hanson I., Laver J. and Wessling R. (eds) 2008. The Scientific Investigation of

Mass Graves: towards protocols and standard operating procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IoA ISSUE DESK CD COX, INST ARCH JF COX

Duday, H. 2009. The Archaeology of the Dead: lectures in archaeothanatology. Oxford: Oxbow. INST

ARCH JF DUD Mays, S. 2002. Guidelines for producing assessments and reports on human remains from

archaeological sites. English Heritage/BABAO: London. http://www.babao.org.uk/index/cms-filesystem-action/eh_human_remains_mays2002.pdf

Submission date: Monday 4 November 2013 Essay 2a: To what extent to Upper Palaeolithic burials in Europe and western Asia provide evidence for social structure and social status?

5

Pettitt, P. 2010. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London: Routledge. ISSUE DESK IoA PET

20, INST ARCH BC 120 PET Riel-Salvatore, J. and Gravel-Miguel, C. 2012. Upper Palaeolithic mortuary practices in Eurasia: a

critical look at the burial record. In S. Tarlow and L. Nilsson Stutz, (eds) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.pp. 303-346 (Chapter 17). http://www.academia.edu/2626398/Upper_Paleolithic_mortuary_practices_in_Eurasia_A_critical_look_at_the_burial_record Electronic resource

Vanhaeren, M. and dErrico, F. 2005. Grave goods from the Saint-Germain-la-Rivire burial: evidence

for social inequality in the Upper Palaeolithic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24: 117-34. Electronic resource

Zilho, J. 2005. Burial evidence for the social differentiation of age classes in the early Upper

Palaeolithic. In D. Vialou, J. Renault-Miskovsky and M. Patou-Mathis (eds) Comportements des Hommes du Palolithique Moyen et Suprieur en Europe: territoires et milieux. Actes du Colloque du G.D.R. 1945 du CNRS, Paris, 8-10 janvier 2003. Lige: ERAUL 111. pp. 231-41. http://www2.ulg.ac.be/prehist/PUBLICATIONS/PDF/E111%20Zilhao.pdf Electronic resource

Essay 2b: How have discoveries from rivers and caves in Britain affected interpretations of Neolithic mortuary practices? Chamberlain, A.T. 2012. Caves and the funerary landscape of prehistoric Britain. In Moyes, H

(Ed.), Sacred Darkness: a global perspective on the ritual use of caves. Boulder, Colorado: University Press of Colorado. pp. 81-86. eScholarID:196900 Electronic resource

Lamdin-Whymark, H. 2008. The Residue of Ritualised Action: Neolithic deposition practices in the

middle Thames valley. Oxford: BAR (British Series) 466. INST ARCH DAA Qto Series BRI 466

Schulting, R.J. 2007. Non-monumental burial in Britain: a (largely) cavernous view. In L. Larsson, F.

Lth and T. Terberger (eds) Non-Megalithic Mortuary Practices in the Baltic new methods and research into the development of Stone Age society. Schwerin: BRGK 88. pp. 581-603. http://www.academia.edu/543776/Non-monumental_burial_in_Neolithic_Britain_a_largely_cavernous_view Electronic resource

Thomas, J. 1999. Understanding the Neolithic. London: Routledge. Chapter 6. INST ARCH DAA 140

THO

Essay 2c: To what extent were cosmological beliefs about the transition to the afterlife in Egypts New Kingdom embodied in the tomb and its contents? Faulkner, R.O. 1972. The Ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead. London: British Museum. Introduction

(pp.11-16). EGYPTOLOGY V 50 BOO Reeves, C.N. 1990. The Complete Tutankhamun: the king, the tomb, the royal treasure. London:

Thames & Hudson. (pp. 70-74, 78-91, 100-114, 119-122, 128-149, 188-196, 208-211). EGYPTOLOGY E 7 REE

Quirke, S. 2013. Going out in Daylight: prt m hrw - the ancient Egyptian book of the dead: translations,

sources, meanings. London: Golden House. EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS V 30 BOO

6

Spellane, J. 2007. Image into reality: the vignette of Spell 151 of the Book of the Dead, and its integration throughout the burial of Sennedjem. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 22(1): 58-74. Periodicals

Taylor, J.H. 2001. Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum. Chapter 3 (pp.

92-111). ISSUE DESK IOA TAY 7, EGYPTOLOGY R 5 TAY

Taylor, J.H. (ed.) 2010. Journey Through the Afterlife : ancient Egyptian book of the dead. EGYPTOLOGY QUARTOS V 50 BOO

Submission date: Monday 13 January 2014 If students are unclear about the nature of an assignment, they should discuss this with the Course Co-ordinator. Students are not permitted to re-write and re-submit essays in order to try to improve their marks. The nature of the assignment and possible approaches to it will be discussed in class, in advance of the submission deadline. Word-length Strict new regulations with regard to word-length were introduced UCL-wide with effect from 2013: 3.1.7 Penalties for Over-length Coursework For submitted coursework, where a maximum length has been specified, the following procedure will apply: i) The length of coursework will normally be specified in terms of a word count ii) Assessed work should not exceed the prescribed length. iii) For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by less than10% the mark will be reduced by ten percentage marks; but the penalised mark will not be reduced below the pass mark, assuming the work merited a pass. iv) For work that exceeds the specified maximum length by 10% or more, a mark of zero will be recorded. vii) In the case of coursework that is submitted late and is also overlength, the lateness penalty will have precedence.

The following should not be included in the word-count: title page, contents pages, lists of figure and tables, abstract, preface, acknowledgements, bibliography, captions and contents of tables and figures, appendices, and wording of citations. Submission procedures (coversheets and Turnitin, including Class ID and password)

Students are required to submit hard copy of all coursework to the course co-ordinators pigeon hole via the Red Essay Box at Reception by the appropriate deadline. The coursework must be stapled to a completed coversheet (available from the web, from outside Room 411A or from the library) Students should put their Candidate Number on all coursework. This is a 5 digit alphanumeric code and can be found on Portico: it is different from the Student

7

Number/ ID. Please also put the Candidate Number and course code on each page of the work. It is also essential that students put their Candidate Number at the start of the title line on Turnitin, followed by the short title of the coursework.. eg YBPR6 Funerary Archaeology Please note the stringent UCL-wide penalties for late submission given below. Late submission will be penalized in accordance with these regulations unless permission has been granted and an Extension Request Form (ERF) completed. Date-stamping will be via Turnitin (see below), so in addition to submitting hard copy, students must also submit their work to Turnitin by the midnight on the day of the deadline. Students who encounter technical problems submitting their work to Turnitin should email the nature of the problem to ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk in advance of the deadline in order that the Turnitin Advisers can notify the Course Co-ordinator that it may be appropriate to waive the late submission penalty.

If there is any other unexpected crisis on the submission day, students should telephone or (preferably) e-mail the Course Co-ordinator, and follow this up with a completed ERF Please see the Coursework Guidelines on the IoA website (or your Degree Handbook) for further details of penalties. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/submission Hard copy will no longer be date-stamped.

The Turnitin 'Class ID' is XXXXX and the 'Class Enrolment Password' is IoA1314 Further information is given on the IoA website. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/turnitin Turnitin advisers will be available to help you via email: ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk if needed. UCL-WIDE PENALTIES FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF COURSEWORK

UCL regulation 3.1.6 Late Submission of Coursework Where coursework is not submitted by a published deadline, the following penalties will apply: i) A penalty of 5 percentage marks should be applied to coursework submitted the calendar day after the deadline (calendar day 1). ii) A penalty of 15 percentage marks should be applied to coursework submitted on calendar day 2 after the deadline through to calendar day 7. iii) A mark of zero should be recorded for coursework submitted on calendar day 8 after the deadline through to the end of the second week of third term. Nevertheless, the assessment will be considered to be complete provided the coursework contains material than can be assessed. iv) Coursework submitted after the end of the second week of third term will not be marked and the assessment will be incomplete.

8

vii) Where there are extenuating circumstances that have been recognised by the Board of Examiners or its representative, these penalties will not apply until the agreed extension period has been exceeded. viii) In the case of coursework that is submitted late and is also over length, only the lateness penalty will apply.

Timescale for return of marked coursework to students. You can expect to receive your marked work within four calendar weeks of the official submission deadline. If you do not receive your work within this period, or a written explanation from the marker, you should notify the IoAs Academic Administrator, Judy Medrington. Keeping copies Please note that it is an Institute requirement that you retain a copy (this can be electronic) of all coursework submitted. When your marked essay is returned to you, you should return it to the marker within two weeks. Citing of sources Coursework should be expressed in a students own words giving the exact source of any ideas, information, diagrams etc. that are taken from the work of others. Any direct quotations from the work of others must be indicated as such by being placed between inverted commas. Plagiarism is regarded as a very serious irregularity which can carry very heavy penalties. It is your responsibility to read and abide by the requirements for presentation, referencing and avoidance of plagiarism to be found in the IoA Coursework Guidelines on the IoA website http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook There are strict penalties for plagiarism. Further details are available on the IoA website.

AVOIDING PLAGIARISM The term plagiarism means presenting material (words, figures etc.) in a way that allows the reader to believe that it is the work of the author he or she is reading, when it is in fact the creation of another person. In academic and other circles, plagiarism is regarded as theft of intellectual property. UCL regulations, all detected plagiarism is to be penalized and noted on the students record, irrespective of whether the plagiarism is committed knowingly or unintentionally. The whole process of an allegation of plagiarism and its investigation is likely to cause considerable personal embarrassment and to leave a very unpleasant memory in addition to the practical consequences of the penalty. The penalties can be surprizingly severe and may include failing a course or a whole degree. It is thus important to take deliberate steps to avoid any inadvertent plagiarism. Avoiding plagiarism should start at the stage of taking notes. In your notes, it should be wholly clear what is taken directly from a source, what is a paraphrase of the content of a source and what is your own synthesis or original thought. Make sure you include sources and relevant page numbers in your notes. When writing an essay any words and special meanings, any special phrases, any clauses or sentences taken directly from a source must be enclosed in inverted commas and followed by a reference to the source in brackets. It is not generally

9

necessary to use direct quotations except when comparing particular terms or phrases used by different authors. Similarly, all figures and tables taken from sources must have their origin acknowledged in the caption. Captions do not contribute to any maximum word lengths. Paraphrased information taken from a source must be followed by a reference to the source. If a paragraph contains information from several sources, it must be made clear what information comes from where: a list of sources at the end of the paragraph is not sufficient. Please cite sources of information fully, including page numbers where appropriate, in order to avoid any risk of plagiarism: citations in the text do not contribute to any maximum word count. To guard further against inadvertent plagiarism, you may find it helpful to write a plan of your coursework answer or essay and to write the coursework primarily on the basis of your plan, only referring to sources or notes when you need to check something specific such as a page number for a citation. COLLUSION, except where required, is also an examination offence. While discussing topics and questions with fellow students is one of the benefits of learning in a university environment, you should always plan and write your coursework answers entirely independently.

3 SCHEDULE AND SYLLABUS Teaching schedule Seminars will be held 14:00-16:00 on Tuesdays, in room 612. One visit will be scheduled to the British Museum. It is anticipated that this will be held in the fourth week of the autumn term, subject to finalization of the arrangements and discussion with the class. Further details will be announced closer to the date. Lecturer: Mike Parker Pearson. Syllabus The following is an outline for the course as a whole, and identifies essential and supplementary readings relevant to each session. Information is provided as to where in the UCL library system individual readings are available; their location and Teaching Collection (TC) number, and status (whether out on loan) can also be accessed on the eUCLid computer catalogue system. Readings marked with an * are considered essential to keep up with the topics covered in the course. Copies of individual articles and chapters identified as essential reading are in the Teaching Collection in the Institute Library (where permitted by copyright) or are available online.

1. Introduction to funerary archaeology This lecture introduces students to the main themes and directions of funerary archaeology, from methods of excavation and analysis to concepts and principles for investigating ritual and social dimensions of funerary practices in past societies. It is an opportunity to discuss the theoretical and empirical influences on the development of funerary archaeology. Reading: Bahn, P.G. (ed.) 1996 Tombs, Graves and Mummies. London: Weidenfeld &

Nicolson. 34-87, 92-133, 146-51, 180-99. INST ARCH AG BAH

10

Chapman, R. and Randsborg, K. 1981. Perspectives on the archaeology of death. In R. Chapman, I.A. Kinnes and K. Randsborg (eds) The Archaeology of Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1-24. ISSUE DESK IOA CHA 7, INST ARCH BC 100 Qto CHA

Duday, H. 2009. The Archaeology of the Dead: lectures in archaeothanatology. Oxford: Oxbow. INST ARCH JF DUD

Mays, S. 2002. Guidelines for producing assessments and reports on human remains from archaeological sites. English Heritage/BABAO: London. http://www.babao.org.uk/index/cms-filesystem-action/eh_human_remains_mays2002.pdf

2. Principles of analysis: ritual and remembrance How do archaeologists identify and characterize ritual, with regard to the treatment of human remains? What are the concepts of ritual, liminality, remembrance, and materiality? How do concepts of reversal, separation, transition, decay, fertility and sex have relevance for understanding mortuary rites and rituals? These are questions that will be addressed in this seminar. Reading: Huntington, R. and Metcalf, P. 1979. Celebrations of Death: the anthropology of

mortuary ritual. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chgapter 3. INST ARCH FA INS, ANTHROPOLOGY D 155 HUN

Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London: Routledge. 10-12, 65-100. ANTHROPOLOGY D 100 INS

Insoll, T. (ed.) 2011. The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. INST ARCH FA INS

Kyriakidis, E. 2007. Finding ritual: calibrating the evidence. In E. Kyriakidis (ed.) The Archaeology of Ritual. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. 9-22. INST ARCH AH KYR

Vanzetti, A., Vidale, M., Gallinaro, M., Frayer, D.W. and Bondioli, L. 2010. The iceman as a burial. Antiquity 84: 681-92. Electronic resource

3. Ethnoarchaeology of death Archaeologists have drawn on ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies to develop a wide range of analogies for understanding the archaeology of mortuary practices. This seminar examines different types of analogy and their relative uses and limitations for understanding the past. Reading: Ucko, P.J. 1969. Ethnography and archaeological interpretation of funerary remains.

World Archaeology 1: 262-80. Electronic resource Binford, L. 1971. Mortuary practices: their study and their potential. In J. Brown (ed.)

Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices. Washington DC: Memoir of the Society for American Archaeology 25. 6-29. ISSUE DESK IoA BRO5, INST ARCH BD BRO

Danforth, L.M. 1982. The Death Rituals of Rural Greece. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gr.IV DAN, ANTHROPOLOGY LT 43 DAN

Parker Pearson, M. 1982. Mortuary practices, society and ideology: an ethnoarchaeological case study. In I. Hodder (ed.) Symbolic and Structural

11

Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 99-113. ISSUE DESK IOA HOD 12 , INST ARCH AH HOD, ANTHROPOLOGY C 7 HOD

David, N. and Kramer, C. 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 13 (378-408). ISSUE DESK IoA DAV8, INST ARCH AH DAV

Mack, J. 1986. Madagascar: island of the ancestors. London: British Museum Press. 62-92. INST ARCH MG 3 MAC

Bloch, M. 1971. Placing the Dead: tombs, ancestral villages and kinship organization in Madagascar. London: Seminar Press. INST ARCH DCD BLO

Kus, S. 1992 Toward an archaeology of body and soul. In J.-C. Gardin and C.S. Peebles (eds.) Representations in Archaeology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 168-77. INST ARCH AH GAR

Parker Pearson, M. 2000. Eating money: a study in the ethnoarchaeology of food. Archaeological Dialogues 7: 217-32. Electronic resource

Parker Pearson, M. 2010. Pastoralists, Warriors and Colonists: the archaeology of southern Madagascar. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports (International Series) S2139. 472-510. INST ARCH DCD Qto PAR

4. Reading the body, treating the corpse Human remains may be exposed to lengthy post-mortem treatments: mummification, cannibalism, trophy-taking, cremation, excarnation and skull decoration amongst other activities. This seminar examines the material residues of different methods of post-mortem treatment to understand their social implications and significance. Reading: Armit, I. 2012. Headhunting and the Body in Iron Age Europe. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. 45-68. Rebay-Salisbury, K. 2010. Cremations: fragmented bodies in the Bronze and

Iron Ages. In K. Rebay-Salisbury, M.-L. Stig Srensen and J. Hughes (eds) 2010. Body Parts and Bodies Whole: changing relations and meanings. Oxford: Oxbow. 64-71. INST ARCH DA 100 REB

Turner, C.G. 1993. Cannibalism in Chaco Canyon: the charnel pit excavated in 1926 at Small House Ruin by Frank H.H. Roberts, Jr. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 91: 412-39. Electronic resource

Boulestin, B., Zeeb-Lanz, A., Jeunesse, C., Haack, F., Arbogast, R.-M. and Denaire, A. 2009. Mass cannibalism in the Linear Pottery Culture at Herxheim (Palatinate, Germany). Antiquity 83: 968-82. Electronic resource

Tarlow, S. 2002. The aesthetic corpse in nineteenth-century Britain. In Y. Hamilakis, M. Pluciennik and S. Tarlow (eds) 2002. Thinking through the body: archaeologies of corporeality. London: Kluwer. 85-97. ISSUE DESK IOA HAM 4, INST ARCH BD HAM

Degusta, D. 2000. Fijian cannibalism and mortuary ritual: bioarchaeological evidence from Vunda. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10: 76-92. Electronic resource

Chamberlain, A.T. and Parker Pearson, M. 2001 Earthly Remains: the history and science of preserved human bodies. London: British Museum. 169-88. INST ARCH JF CHA

5. Status, power and identity: the powerful dead

12

Archaeologists have long used burial rites to interpret social status of the deceased. With the understanding that the dead do not bury themselves, more sophisticated approaches to social ranking have emerged. This seminar examines the different approaches to interpreting social status, including the political and ideological impact on those holding funerals and those being commemorated. Reading: Peebles, C. and Kus, S. 1977. Some archaeological correlates of ranked societies.

American Antiquity 42: 421-48. Electronic resource. Arnold, B. 2011. The illusion of power, the power of illusion: ideology and the

concretization of social difference in Early-Iron Age Europe. In Bernbeck, R. and McGuire, R.H. (eds) Ideologies in Archaeology. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 151-72. INST ARCH AG BER

Morris, I. 1992. Death-ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 31-69. ANCIENT HISTORY M 55 MOR

Wason, P. 1994. The Archaeology of Rank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. INST ARCH BD WAS

Williams, H. 2004. Death warmed up: the agency of bodies and bones in early Anglo-Saxon cremation rites. Journal of Material Culture 9: 263-91. Electronic resource

6. Death in the landscape The dead are all around us, in monuments, mementos and memories as well as their physical remains. This seminar explores spatial, topographical and phenomenological approaches to placing the dead in the landscapes of past societies in order to understand how relationships were constructed and maintained between the living and the dead. Reading: Bradley, R. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies. London: Routledge. 82-111.

INST ARCH DA 100 BRA Tilley, C. 2004. The Materiality of Stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology.

London: Berg. 1-31. ANTHROPOLOGY C 7 TIL, INST ARCH DA 100 TIL Cummings, V., Henley, C. and Sharples, N. 2005. The chambered cairns of South

Uist. In V. Cummings and A. Pannett (eds) Set in Stone: new approaches to Neolithic monuments in Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow. 37-54. INST ARCH DAA 500 Qto CUM

Fleming, A. 2006. Post-processual landscape archaeology: a critique. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 16: 267-80. Electronic resource

7. Death and the origins of human consciousness In contrast with other primates, humans have an unusually developed sense of mortality, treating the remains of their species with a dazzling variety of post-mortem practices. How and why did this come about, and at what stages in our evolution? How did it develop in relation to other indices of self-awareness, and what were its long-term implications for human evolution and adaptation? Reading: Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton.

142-56. ISSUE DESK IoA PAR 8, INST ARCH AH PAR

13

Insoll, T. 2004. Archaeology, Ritual, Religion. London: Routledge. 23-32. ANTHROPOLOGY D 100 INS

Pettitt, P. 2010. The Palaeolithic Origins of Human Burial. London: Routledge. 11-40, 261-70. ISSUE DESK IoA PET 20, INST ARCH BC 120 PET

Taylor, T. 2002. The Buried Soul: how humans invented death. London: Fourth Estate. 56-85.

9. The human experience of death Archaeology can provide insights into the human awareness of death as it evolved over thousands of years from the earliest civilizations to the world religions and secular humanism of today. In that time, humans have sought to transcend their tragic limitation by seeking paths to immortality on both sides of the grave. This seminar examines the archaeological evidence for these attempts to transcend mortality over the last 10,000 years of social evolution from small-scale hunter-gatherers to urban states. Reading: Chidester, D. 1990. Patterns of Transcendence: religion, death, and dying. Belmont

CA: Wadsworth. 169-216. Kuijt, I. 1996. Negotiating equality through ritual: a consideration of Late Natufian and

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A period mortuary practices. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 15: 313-36. Electronic resource

Parker Pearson, M. 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. Stroud: Sutton. 156-70. ISSUE DESK IoA PAR 8, INST ARCH AH PAR

Taylor, J.H. 2001. Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press. 10-45. EGYPTOLOGY R 5 TAY

10. The politics of the dead The dead have always been political, but today archaeologists and museums face challenges from ethnic and religious minorities for reburial and repatriation of human remains and associated materials. In addition, archaeologists are often involved in forensic investigations of genocide and other recent atrocities, bringing them into potential conflict with state authorities as well as local communities. Reading: Zimmerman, L.J. 1989. Made radical by my own: an archaeologist learns to accept

reburial. In R. Layton (ed.) Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions. London : Unwin Hyman. 60-7. ISSUE DESK IoA LAY 5 , INST ARCH BD LAY, ANTHROPOLOGY C 6 LAY

Cox M., Flavel A., Hanson I., Laver J. and Wessling R. (eds) 2008. The Scientific Investigation of Mass Graves: towards protocols and standard operating procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. IoA ISSUE DESK CD COX, INST ARCH JF COX

Sayer, D. 2010. Ethics and Burial Archaeology. London: Duckworth. INST ARCH AG 20 SAY

Parker Pearson, M., Moshenska, G. and Schadla-Hall, T. 2012. Resolving the human remains crisis in British archaeology. PIA: Papers from the Institute of Archaeology 21: 6-34. Electronic resource

14

BABAO n.d. Code of Ethics. BABAO: London. http://www.babao.org.uk/index/cms-filesystem-action/code of ethics.pdf

11. Funerary powerpoint karaoke This is your opportunity to show what you have learned. Each person in the class must give a 2-minute, stand-up presentation of a randomly chosen series of powerpoint slides selected by the course co-ordinator. The audience can join in to help explain the content of the slides if the presenter is struggling. This is meant to be a light-hearted finale for the half-module. 4 ONLINE RESOURCES The full UCL Institute of Archaeology coursework guidelines are given here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook The full text of this handbook is available here (includes clickable links to Moodle and online reading lists if applicable) http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/staff/handbook Online reading list http://readinglists.ucl.ac.uk/lists/C7E22994-3847-1714-E079-80EFD041BFA0.html

Moodle Access code ARCLG281 5 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Libraries and other resources In addition to the Library of the Institute of Archaeology, other libraries in UCL with holdings of particular relevance to this degree are: History, Science Attendance A register will be taken at each class. If you are unable to attend a class, please notify the lecturer by email. Departments are required to report each students attendance to UCL Registry at frequent intervals throughout each term. Students are expected to attend at least 70% of classes. Information for intercollegiate and interdepartmental students Students enrolled in Departments outside the Institute should collect hard copy of the Institutes coursework guidelines from Judy Medringtons office (411A). Dyslexia If you have dyslexia or any other disability, please make your lecturers aware of this. Please discuss with your lecturers whether there is any way in which they can help you. Students with dyslexia are reminded to indicate this on each piece of coursework.

15

Feedback In trying to make this course as effective as possible, we welcome feedback from students during the course of the year. All students are asked to give their views on the course in an anonymous questionnaire which will be circulated at one of the last sessions of the course. These questionnaires are taken seriously and help the Course Co-ordinator to develop the course. The summarised responses are considered by the Institute's Staff-Student Consultative Committee, Teaching Committee, and by the Faculty Teaching Committee. If students are concerned about any aspect of this course we hope they will feel able to talk to the Course Co-ordinator, but if they feel this is not appropriate, they should consult their Personal Tutor, the Academic Administrator (Judy Medrington), or the Chair of Teaching Committee (Dr. Karen Wright).

16

HOW TO UPLOAD YOUR WORK TO TURNITIN Note that Turnitin uses the term class for what we normally call a course.

1. Ensure that your essay or other item of coursework has been saved properly, and that you have the Class ID for the course (available from the course handbook) and enrolment password (this is IoA1314 for all courses this session - note that this is capital letter I, lower case letter o, upper case A, followed by the current academic year)

2. Click on http://www.submit.ac.uk (NB not www.turnitin.com, which is the US site) or copy this URL into your favourite web browser

3. Click on Create account

4. Select your category as Student

5. Create an account using your UCL email address. Note that you will be asked to specify a new password for your account - do not use your UCL password or the enrolment password, but invent one of your own (Turnitin will permanently associate this with your account, so you will not have to change it every 3 months, unlike your UCL password). In addition, you will be asked for a Class ID and a Class enrollment password (see point 1 above).

6. Once you have created an account you can just log in at http://www.submit.ac.uk and enrol for your other classes without going through the new user process again. Simply click on Enroll in a class. Make sure you have all the relevant class IDs at hand.

7. Click on the course to which you wish to submit your work.

8. Click on the correct assignment (e.g. Essay 1).

9. Double-check that you are in the correct course and assignment and then click Submit

10. Attach document as a Single file upload

11. Enter your name (the examiner will not be able to see this)

12. Fill in the Submission title field with the right details: It is essential that the first word in the title is your examination candidate number (e.g. YGBR8 In what sense can culture be said to evolve?), and not your name.

13. Click Upload. When the upload is finished, you will be able to see a text-only version of your

submission.

14 Click on Submit

If you have problems, please email the Turnitin Advisers on ioa-turnitin@ucl.ac.uk, explaining the nature of the problem and the exact course and assignment involved.

One of the Turnitin Advisers will normally respond within 24 hours, Monday-Friday during term. Please be sure to email the Turnitin Advisers if technical problems prevent you from uploading work in time to meet a submission deadline - even if you do not obtain an immediate response from one of the Advisers they will be able to notify the relevant Course Co-ordinator that you attempted to submit the work before the deadline.

17